Scenic Waterways

ORS 390.805
Definitions for ORS 390.805 to 390.925


As used in ORS 390.805 (Definitions for ORS 390.805 to 390.925) to 390.925 (Enforcement), unless the context requires otherwise:

(1)

“Related adjacent land” means all land within one-fourth of one mile of the bank on the side of Waldo Lake, or a river or segment of river within a scenic waterway, except land that, in the State Parks and Recreation Department’s judgment, does not affect the view from the waters within a scenic waterway.

(2)

“Scenic easement” means the right to control the use of related adjacent land, including airspace above such land, for the purpose of protecting the scenic view from waters within a scenic waterway; but such control does not affect, without the owner’s consent, any regular use exercised prior to the acquisition of the easement, and the landowner retains the right to uses of the land not specifically restricted by the easement.

(3)

“Scenic waterway” means Waldo Lake, or a river or segment of river that has been designated as such in accordance with ORS 390.805 (Definitions for ORS 390.805 to 390.925) to 390.925 (Enforcement) or any subsequent Act, and includes related adjacent land. [1971 c.1 §2; 1981 c.787 §55; 1983 c.334 §1; 1983 c.642 §10; 1989 c.904 §25; 1995 c.79 §203; 2001 c.104 §132]

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Authority to designate segment of Snake River as a scenic waterway, (1972) Vol 35, p 1226

Law Review Citations

4 EL 301 (1974); 21 EL 133 (1991)

§§ 390.805 to 390.925

Notes of Decisions

An easement is not involved in the state's right under these sections to regulate use of related adjacent land, but an easement is an additional right which the state may acquire by purchase or gift. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

Time factors involved are not designed to freeze land values to subsidize later acquisition by the state, nor do they impose unreasonable restraints upon landowners. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

The regulatory provisions are separate from the provisions giving the state the right to acquire land or interests in related adjacent land, and the state does not gain an interest in land by the adoption of the Act. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

The state's power to regulate is analogous to zoning restrictions and therefore the state does not acquire an interest for which compensation must be paid. Scott v. State Hwy. Comm., 23 Or App 99, 541 P2d 516 (1975)

Where water would otherwise flow through scenic waterway, provisions of Scenic Waterways Act requiring showing that proposed diversion was necessary to beneficial use applied to proposed diversion in city's application for permit to operate hydroelectric facility. Diack v. City of Portland, 306 Or 287, 759 P2d 1070 (1988)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Prohibition of landfills on scenic waterways, (1971) Vol 35, p 844; authority to designate segment of Snake River as a scenic waterway, (1972) Vol 35, p 1226; definition and regulation of "placer mining," (1982) Vol. 42, p 213

Law Review Citations

4 EL 299-303, 373-376 (1974); 19 EL 841 (1989); 21 EL 133 (1991); 29 WLR 95 (1993)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021